As we head towards the general election, the debate about crime looks set to be one of the most misinformed.
First, politicians constantly speak as if crime is out of control – Chris Grayling famously compared Britain to Baltimore, even though that single city records around 200 fatal shooting a year, compared to just 39 last year for the whole of the Britain. The fact is that crime is lower today than at any point since records began in 1981. Since 1995 vandalism is down 18%, burglary 58%, vehicle-related theft 65%, other household theft 48%, bicycle theft 20%, and violent crime 49%. Fear of crime has also fallen and even people’s perception of anti-social behaviour in their community is less today than in 2002/03.
Of course politicians are responding to people’s anxieties – the public generally doesn’t believe that crime has fallen – what pollsters have called ‘the perception gap’. But the facts are the facts – and politicians should treat them as such.
Second, the knee jerk policy response to crime remains pretty much the same: more bobbies on the beat! So, this week the Prime Minister said frontline police funding would be ring-fenced. Chris Huhne went further and said that we need to recruit even more officers.
Again lets reflect on some facts here: spending on the police service increased by 19% in real terms between 1997/98 and 2008/09. Most of this money was spent on increasing the number of police officers: police numbers increased by 11 per cent or by 16,326 officers between 1997 and 2009, meaning that there are more police now than at any time in our history.
Was this most well spent? Well crime fell, sure. But the government’s own strategy unit has estimated that 80% of that fall was due to economic growth, rather than expenditure on the police. In fact the government accepts that its neighbourhood policing programme is more about public reassurance rather than reducing crime.
We could maintain and even increase the number of officers currently out on the beat – important to reassure the public – without increasing the police budget or recruiting more officers. The way to do that is by reforming the way the police service works. No one seems ready to grasp that nettle.
Rick Muir, senior research fellow
I had a party campaign letter pop through my door yesterday in NW4, campaigning purely on policing and crime.
ReplyDeleteIt asked a few questions around perception and actually, thinking about it, I am a single female in my 20's who feels quite safe walking to a tube station late night in central London, and walking back to my flat from the station in NW4.
I periodically see officers on the beat in the area, but to be honest I don't spend very much time in view of my street (my flat is at the back of the building) or I am at work.
I have had reason to call the police about 6 months ago (a man breaking into someone's car turned out to be helping the owner who had locked his keys inside) and 2 officers arrived within minutes, whilst I was still on the line to the operator.
I would however agree that court sentences are too lenient, and early release is absolutely wrong. By all means rehabilitate prisoners where possible, but a sentence should be served in full. It should be a consequence to the action.
If needs be build more prisons, don't reduce the term of sentences handed down, or tell prisoners they only need serve two thirds of that limited term. This insults victims and their families who have not only endured the crime itself, but also endured the resulting interviews, statements, waiting for trial and then the trial itself.
Those who choose a criminal path know that their offences can be numerous before the court system stops feeling sorry for them and passes a custodial sentence, particularly in the cases of younger people. Time 'inside' isn't seen as any big deal by some, a short spell of pool and computer games then back out again.
If this is the perception of society's view of boundaries and consequences, then what incentive do those at the start of their criminal career have to not carry on this lifestyle in later life?
Prison purports to be and should be a deterrent.
So yes, rambling aside, I agree with your points!
I shall be reading all parties manifestos and the issues I shall decide my vote upon are varied, but crime is not in my top 5. This campaign letter has failed to engage with the issues that matter to me.